I'm actually not aware of that distinction by Chomsky.
I encountered something similar in the writings of Graham Harman, one of the thinkers driving so-called 'object oriented ontology.' Although he supports relational ontology that centres being around external relations, he tries to square that with a claim - quite familiar in Western philosophy, in various guises - that every entity has something ineffable that will forever retreat from us.
Like Laplace said, when asked by Napoleon where God was in his theory, I have no need of that hypothesis. If there is something completely inaccessible to us, then I'm unconcerned with it. That is not to say there are not mechanisms that knowledge of which defy our current knowledge, technology, conceptualization. My ontology is an exceedingly empirical one. It acknowledges black boxes, but only ones that are not yet opened.
Blair, yes, my mistake. Thank you for the clarification.
Can I also say the detail of your budgeting is impressive and perhaps a tad worrisome